Quality assurance for mixed electron–photon beam radiation therapy using treatment log files and MapCHECK
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Mixed photon-electron beam radiotherapy (MBRT) is a technique that combines the use of both photons and electrons in one single treatment plan to exploit their advantageous and complimentary characteristics. Compared to other photon treatment modalities, it has been shown that the MBRT technique contributes to better target coverage and organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing. However, the use of combined photons and electrons in one delivery makes the technique more complex and a well-established quality assurance (QA) protocol for MBRT is essential. PURPOSE: To investigate the feasibility of using MapCHECK and log file-dose reconstruction for MBRT plan verification and to recommend a patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) protocol for MBRT. METHODS: MBRT plans were robustly optimized for five soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) patients. Each plan comprised step-and-shoot deliveries of a six MV photon beam and a combination of five electron beam energies at an SAD of 100 cm. The plans were delivered to the MapCHECK device with collapsed gantry angle and the 2D dose distributions at the detector depth were measured. To simulate the expected dose distribution delivered to the MapCHECK, a MapCHECK computational phantom was modeled in EGSnrc based on vendor-supplied blueprint information. The dose to the detectors in the model was scored using the DOSXYZnrc user code. The agreement between the measured and the simulated dose distribution was evaluated using 2D gamma analysis with a gamma criterion of 3%/2 mm and a low dose threshold of 10%. One of the plans was selected and delivered with a rotating gantry angle for trajectory log file collection. To evaluate the potential interlinac and intralinac differences, the plan was delivered repeatedly on three linacs. From the collected log files, delivery parameters were retrieved to recalculate the 3D dose distributions in the patient's anatomy with DOSXYZnrc. The recalculated mean dose to the clinical target volume (CTV) and OARs from all deliveries were computed and compared with the planned dose in terms of percentage difference. To validate the accuracy of log file-based QA, the log file-recalculated dose was also compared with film measurement. RESULTS: The agreement of the total dose distribution between the MapCHECK measurement and simulation showed gamma passing rates of above 97% for all five MBRT plans. In the log file-dose recalculation, the difference between the recalculated and the planned dose to the CTV and OARs was below 1% for all deliveries. No significant inter- or intralinac differences were observed. The log file-dose had a gamma passing rate of 98.6% compared to film measurement. CONCLUSION: Both the MapCHECK measurements and log file-dose recalculations showed excellent agreement with the expected dose distribution. This study demonstrates the potential of using MapCHECK and log files as MBRT QA tools.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,016 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».